Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

The thing is, when PTv2 was voted, I asked what to do with the bus stop nodes next to the way. The answer was put public_transport=platform on those NODES. In fact they rather represent a pole with a flag on it. But for some bus stops, there is nothing physical present. The bus stops there and

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

sent from a phone > On 22. Jun 2018, at 00:23, > wrote: > > And the ones that used to have only a highway=bus_stop node only require a > public_transport=platform node instead now. No increase in complexity. you must add bus=yes or it would not be a bus stop. It isn’t more complex, just

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

sent from a phone > On 21. Jun 2018, at 23:30, Jo wrote: > > If Paul feels it would be better to have those stop_postion nodes in the > route relations anyway, he can add them back in. They dont add information > though. I am with Jo here: the stop_positions at bus stops do not add any

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

> -Original Message- > From: Martin Koppenhoefer > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2018 08:03 > > a bus stop usually didn’t have a highway=platform, just > highway=bus_stop, only for platforms on stations the former is > suggested. > It is only a fraction (94k) of all bus stops (2M) that could be

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2018, at 19:53, > wrote: > > One, which is connected to the foot network. That is your > public_transport=platform. In this regard, PTv2 is easier than the old > scheme, as you no longer have two separate highway=platform and > highway=bus_stop. You only

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

You guys are hilarious. I actually helped Paull Allen with his questions on how to map that bus line. It's where the discussion about reverse role came from, by the way. Anyway, I removed the stop_position nodes from the route relations yes. It shows that it's perfectly possible to map bus lines

[Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

Graeme Fitzpatrick graemefitz1 at gmail.com  Wed Jun 20 02:13:47 UTC 2018 > So the photos on >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

Hi As to provide a little update on this topic, little improvents have been done on the proposal document https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecom_local_loop telecom=central_office moves to telecom=exchange without change in its definition telecom=outdoor_dslam moves to

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

As I previously said, I would consider this vandalism. > -Original Message- > From: marc marc > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2018 01:23 > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm- > carto > > Le 21. 06. 18 à 16:27, Paul Allen a écrit : >

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

Le 21. 06. 18 à 16:27, Paul Allen a écrit : > Platforms are mapped but stop positions aren't > (somebody who thinks they shouldn't be there cleaned up after me). > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7620346 if want to known who destroy stop_position in the relation, look at version #18

Re: [Tagging] iD presets

On Thursday 21 June 2018, Bryan Housel wrote: > > Just going to cut my reply off here. There was some vague stuff in > your message about “poisoning OSM” that didn’t seem to be a serious > question. That wasn't a question, that was my attempt to explain a fundamental difference in views between

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Jo wrote: > > It's probably best to provide a link to the actual route relation. It's > indeed a complex one. > For those who care, it's https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7620346 (I think I now have everything in the correct order in the relation). I find

Re: [Tagging] iD presets

> On Jun 21, 2018, at 6:16 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Then why do you object to Frederik's idea of separating the tagging > presets from editor development and give up control over the decisions? I offered to do exactly this a few years ago:

Re: [Tagging] A new Tag for "helicopter services"?

Am 20.06.2018 um 00:51 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick: > On 20 June 2018 at 03:43, gorgonz > wrote: > > imho  such a place is like a clerical. Someone sits in the "office" > managing and acquiring orders ;-). In so far, I think that office > is ok. > Or did I

Re: [Tagging] Official OSMF editor (was: emergency=lifeguard)

Martin: > The operation of the OSMF editor should not be in conflict with the > OSMF mission.  Bryan: > iD is not an “OSMF editor”.  I literally have nothing to do with OSMF. Bryan is right; iD is an independent project and not controlled by the OSMF. iD is, of course, afforded considerable

Re: [Tagging] iD presets

On Thursday 21 June 2018, Bryan Housel wrote: > > As I see it, the users of iD and the community are deciding which > presets get included. I might recommend a change in what the display > name should be, or what icon it should have, but I almost never tell > someone that they can’t add a preset